Next Tuesday, we will have a press conference to announce the results of our monitoring of WISN and WTMJ talk radio shows. I can’t give you details until then, but suffice it to say those stations think they don’t have to give comparable time when they really do.

Well they released the results I will not get into the results because they do not matter, that’s right Sue THEY DO NOT MATTER! Here is the intro;

3) Determine whether the talk programs qualify as “bonafide news” per FCC requirements for exemptions for comparable time under Section 315(a) of the Communications Act or under the FCC’s “Quasi-Equal Opportunities” rule, known as the Zapple Doctrine.

Section 315 (a) of the Communications Act imposes Equal Opportunities for candidates on broadcast stations. It says that (a) If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station. If a program is considered “bonafide news” they are exempt from this rule.

I highlighted the pertinent section in red, neither she or her group is a candidate so she does not qualify for equal time, free or otherwise even if her complaints were valid. But then here complaints are not valid. this is from a broadcasting guide done by an award winning FCC attorney.

But then again only the candidate can demand equal time!On to her main complaint about partisanship she herself called both stations “Conservative Talk radio “ and that is exactly what they are, they don’t hide their bias as a matter of fact if you click on the bio’s of the first three people that she named they proudly advertise that fact, that is why people tune in! Are they violating the law by doing this, hell no! again from a renowned FCC Attorney.

How is it that these programs can take political positions without triggering requirements that opposing candidates get equal time? Under FCC rules, unless a candidate’ recognizable voice or image is broadcast by a station, there is no right to equal opportunities. In the past, until the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine by declaring it to be unconstitutional, even without a candidate appearance, the station would have had an obligation to give both sides of a controversial issue of public importance, such as an election, free time to respond to on-air statements by an announcer. When the doctrine was abolished, stations were free to air pointed programs taking positions on issues, giving rise initially principally to the conservative commentators, and more recently to their more liberal counterparts such as those heard on Air America radio.

The abolition of the Fairness Doctrine also allowed broadcasters to editorialize, even endorsing candidates for political office without having to give the opponent of their favored candidate equal time, just like print media can do. Similarly, a station can take a position on a ballot issue, or on another controversial issue of public importance in their communities without having to provide time to those with opposing viewpoints – allowing stations to fully participate in their communities political life. Under the Fairness Doctrine, stations even had to give time to those with viewpoints opposed to parties who bought time on a controversial issue if the opponents could not themselves afford to buy time. The occasional discussion of reviving the Fairness Doctrine ignores these issues.

So no they are not violating the law or the FCC rules. People tune in to “Conservative Talk Radio” for exactly that reason, to get it from a Conservative viewpoint just as the Progressives tune in to the “Ed Shultz Show” which I might add are bound by the same FCC rules, yet she failed to study or show the obvious bias of that show.

She also claims to have made a formal complaint to the FCC the link to the formal complaint is broken so here is what I could get from her site.

Both stations are violating the FCC’s Quasi-Equal Opportunities Doctrine (Zapple Doctrine) which provides that if a radio station gives free airtime to supporters of one major political party candidate, it must provide comparable time to supporters of the other major political party candidate.

Supporters of Tom Barrett are demanding their rights in the remaining days of the Scott Walker recall election, and we have asked the FCC to intervene immediately.

Get real Sue, you can stomp your feet and hold your breath but the First Amendment still stands.

The Zapple case, as we wrote here and here, held that where supporters of a candidate are allowed to buy time on a station, supporters of the opposing candidate should also be allowed to buy roughly equivalent amounts of time.

I agree Harley, but I also am a broadcaster. This progressive leach on society thinks she has some inherant right for free time on the radio to push her agenda. Radio is a tough enough business to make a profit without leaches like her trying to get freebies.

Andrew, I have read it and fully understand it. I have also discussed it with FCC attorneys at numerous Broadcaster conventions. Didn’t you follow the links? Here are the credentials of the Attorney who made the quotes.DAVID OXENFORDDavid Oxenford was a partner in Davis Wright Tremaine’s Washington, DC office. David has represented broadcasters for over 25 years on a wide array of matters from purchases and sales of broadcast properties and the negotiation of programming agreements to regulatory matters. His regulatory expertise includes all areas of broadcast law including the FCC’s multiple ownership limitations, the political broadcasting rules, EEO policy, advertising issues, and other programming matters. He also represents webcasters and other digital media companies, including serving as counsel to a webcast trade association, and representing internet radio companies on copyright, music licensing and other issues.http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/promo/about/

I did look at one of your links. And though he mentioned Zapple, he didn’t directly comment on the issue in contention here, i.e. – Does Zapple extend to supporters of candidates and does it extend to free time in addition to bought time?
The source I gave you, the Wisconsin Broadcasters Association itself, makes clear:
“If the first side received free air time, The Zapple Doctrine requires that the other side also receive free air time”
and
“The doctrine basically extends the equal opportunities law to supporters of a candidate”

IAndrew that’s the part that you don’t get.If you read page 4 section C of your own document it specifically says that the equal opportunities rule applies “only to legally qualified candidates”http://www.gklaw.com/resources/documents/2008%20Political%20Broadcasting%20Manual.pdfOn page two of your document they clearly define “use”, so they clearly define what time qualifies for equal time. The time that the talking heads are on clearly does not qualify for equal time.The Quote from Sue’s blog clearly backs me up.”The FCC responded with the following: “…broadcast stations enjoy freedom of speech under the First Amendment, and the FCC is prohibited by statute from censoring or dictating program content. The result is that stations are free to air pretty much whatever they want (short of obscenity or indecency) – even if the material is false, misleading, or slanted”http://www.suewilsonreports.com/2012/03/fcc-to-public-boycott-rush-and-leave-us.html?m=1

Marshall, You’re confusing 2 different things.
There’s the equal opportunities rule.
Then there’s the quasi-equal opportunities rule, aka the Zapple Doctrine.
The document you and I are both referencing CLEARLY states
“If the first side received free air time, The Zapple Doctrine requires that the other side also receive free air time”
and
“The doctrine basically extends the equal opportunities law to supporters of a candidate.”

Is that section to be ignored?

As for the FCC quote that “backs you up”, the individual who wrote that letter to Sue could either be mistaken or simply referring to the rules as they exist outside of the 60-day campaign window.

I am confusing nothing. You failed to read page 2 as to what is considered use. Use determines how much time one qualifies for. That is why the FCC attorney clearly stated “Under FCC rules, unless a candidate’ recognizable voice or image is broadcast by a station, there is no right to equal opportunities.”. It is that simple!

I’ve read page 2. And again, you’re referring to 2 different sections and 2 different rules. As the document we’re both looking at makes clear. Because these are 2 different rules, the section you’re referencing in no way negates the section I’m referencing, which very clearly states:
“If the first side received free air time, The Zapple Doctrine requires that the other side also receive free air time”
and
“The doctrine basically extends the equal opportunities law to supporters of a candidate.”

This directly contradicts and disproves your central argument. Why can’t you just accept that?
You may not like the Zapple Doctrine. And you may want it repealed. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist and isn’t current FCC law.

No, not two different rules, the FCC rules as what qualifies for equal time applies across the board, the zapple doctrine allows supporters to purchase quasi-equal time that the opponents were allowed to buy. That’s it. Supporters do not qualify for equal time nor are they entitled to free time. That’s why it’s called quasi. Only the candidates qualify for true equal time.

btw, in what bizarre parallel universe does wanting open, honest debate of both sides on the airwaves = wanting to “silence speech they find objectionable.”

Sounds like some pretty hyperbolic fear-mongering strawman logic there, Marshall. But then, that’s the dishonest cliche talking point we’ve been hearing from the right for ever. I was hoping you could be more original than that.

Ancrew, in case you haven’t caught on, I am a Libertarian not a Republican and as such have had my issues with Scott Walker as you can see with this blog.https://peoplesrepubmadison.wordpress.com/2011/09/28/anti-smoking-gestapo-shut-down-ryo/They are talk shows, you are free to call in, what you are not free to do is dictate content. The Constitution is in place to protect us from the government period, you are calling on the government to dictate content. Don’t you think I wish that there were more Libertarians on the air? Hell yes, but to get it done through government mandates goes against every Libertarian principle and against the principles this country was founded on.”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”So sorry Andrew, I stand on principle. No strawman here!

I never called you a Republican. I did (correctly IMO) conclude you were “from the right”. Libertarians are on the right-wing of economic issues (“privatize everything”), just as Greens or Communist party would be on the left-wing. With R’s and D’s closer to the center from both sides.

And regardless where you stand on the political spectrum, accusing us of wanting to “silence speech they find objectionable” is the very definition of a dishonest strawman argument, as any objective observer could see.
Just admit it. And then we can have an honest debate.

Andrew, the fact that you targeted what you quote “Right Wing” radio shows that it is not strawman. What you demand would put talk radio out of business during election cycles, and since it appears that “elections have consequences” only when your side wins. Wisconsin is under constant election cycles. I stand by my statement.The left seems to always want it their way on someone else’s dime. This is from Mark Loyd, Obama’s FCC Chief Diversity Officer.They go on further to say;Quantitative analysis of all 10,506 licensed commercial radio stations in the country suggests that stations owned by racial or ethnic minorities are statisticallyless likely to air conservative hosts or shows and more likely to air progressive hosts or showsHere were there recommendations to force broadcasters to run their programming;Require radio broadcast licensees to regularly show that they are operating on behalf of the public interest and provide public documentation and viewing of how they are meeting these obligations.If commercial radio broadcasters are unwilling to abide by these regulatory standards or the FCC is unable to effectivelyregulate in the public interest, a spectrum use fee should be levied on owners to directly support local, regional, and national public broadcasting.A fee based on a sliding scale (1 percent for small markets, 5 percent for the largest markets) would be distributed directly to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting with clear mandates to support local news and public affairs programming and to cover controversial and political issues in a fair and balanced manner.http://veritasvincitprolibertate.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/the-new-fcc/

“What you demand would put talk radio out of business during election cycles”

I seriously doubt that.
a) Even during the election cycles, the shows are free to be as partisan and one-sided as always whenever the topic is not about that current election.
b) How could constructive debate of both sides put them out of business? In fact, some of the most exciting and entertaining radio is when both sides are allowed to hash it out together. Why is WISN and WTMJ so afraid of that?
Progressive talk shows already have plenty of conservative guests on for debate. Take for example, http://www.thomhartmann.com/
3 million+ listeners tune in to hear him debate multiple conservative guests on almost every show. Why can’t Belling, Sykes, or McKenna do that?

Broadcasting is not the lucrative business it once was, Sue in her own blog’s admits that Clear Channel has financial problems. You are demanding “free air time” on an already struggling industry. If you demand that the government dictate content there is no more freedom of speech or freedom of the press. And who would be the impartial arbiter determining exactly who would speak for the opposition?. The cost and the restraints would simply put talk radio out of business plain and simple. Not to mention your side does not want to give the press equal access, do they. http://www.wisconsinreporter.com/commentary-where-there-is-a-will-there-is-a-way

I don’t see how complying with the Quasi-Equal Opportunities Rule would add any costs or restrict any freedom of speech. I also doubt it would hurt ratings. For every close-minded listener lost, an open-minded one could be gained.
As for an impartial arbiter, I doubt one would be needed. Simply invite the candidate and/or a well-known supporter, the way news shows have always done it.

“Not to mention your side does not want to give the press equal access, do they?”

Graeme Zielinski is one person, he is not the entirety of “our side”. As the author of your link even made clear, he met several other Dems who were happy to talk to him.
“But Graeme Zielinski’s your spokesman.” Yeah, he is, and not a very good one. We lost these recall elections largely due to the strategic PR blunders of our party leadership and I and many others would like to see them replaced.

You fail to show that one single representative of the Democratic party asked for and was denied a forum, it is my experience that since the left’s platform can’t bare scrutiny they tend to gravitate towards friendly media.. It was not PR blunders. Walkers reforms are working, period. You guys produced a weak candidate who offered no platform alternatives, he actually offered no alternatives as apparent in the debates, it was nothing but one personal attack after another. But not one substantive policy plan that would have made a difference. As far as ratings goes, again show me one market where liberal radio surpasses conservative radio. It doesn’t. For whatever reason liberals don’t listen to talk radio. As I have pointed out in the past even in Liberal Madison Liberal talk radio had a small fraction of the listeners that conservative radio did I didn’t create the facts but here they are. Again I am a broadcaster and these are the numbers that every broadcaster looks at.http://www.dane101.com/current/2008/08/13/new_arbitron_ratings_paint_bleak_picture_for_progressive_talk_in_madison

Sorry Andrew, I find your claimed sensitivity humorous in light of the outrageous attacks on us from the left. It is the left that declared civil war on the rest of the country with derogatory terms like “TEABagger. Calling us racists,Nazis,woman haters etc etc etc. Well when you declare war expect the rocks to get thrown back.https://veritasvincitprolibertate.wordpress.com/2012/05/14/who-is-linda-hubbard/

Sensitivity? Lol. You can call me all the names you want, pal. Won’t hurt my feelings none. I’ve heard it all before.
This is not about sensitivity. It’s about credibility. Which is what you lose when you resort to ad-hominems and over-the-top hyperbole like “declared civil war on the rest of the country.”

“But the left does it too”

1. Sure, you can always cherry-pick a few examples here and there of liberals behaving badly. But in my observation, the right has been far more hateful, vitriolic, and mean-spirited in it’s attacks on the left.
For example, you recommend Vicki McKenna several times in your link. Have you not listened to her show?!? She’s 2 straight hours of vicious, venomous, bile towards liberals. You hold her up as a standard of civility you’d like us on the left to follow???
One of your videos even asks something like “why can’t liberals handle honest debate?”
Well, why can’t Vicki??? Why won’t she ever allow any of the targets of her screeds on to defend themselves?
(I’ll give you the answer: Because then she’d be exposed as the liar she is)

2. Even if you were right, someone has to take the high road. Someone has to be the adult. You say you want respectful debate? Then act like it. And you’ll get respect from me (and most liberals) in return.

She won’t let anyone filibuster and she doesn’t have to, it’s her show! Here is the show where she talks about the attacks from the left, on her and other conservative woman.
[audio src="http://media.ccomrcdn.com/media/station_content/1176/vm_03-23-12_hour1_part1_1332524593_11115.mp3" /]

“it is the left that used the term “Civil War” referring to Scott Walker”

This is what’s called a False Equivalence. (One of the right’s most popular logical fallacies) There is no equivalence between your claim and Barrett’s.
1. Tea partiers do not constitute the whole “rest of the country.” Not even close.
2. You accused the entire left of declaring civil war. Barrett simply accused an individual.
2b. And he didn’t even do that! He merely said that Walker’s actions led to an “ideological civil war.”
3. There is actual evidence supporting Barrett. For example, what did you think Walker meant when he said he would “divide and conquer”? Who exactly was he planning to divide?

As for the “war on women”, I agree it’s an over-simplification and equally hyperbolic. But as Jon Stewart so hilariously points out, there’s a lot more evidence for it than the right’s many “War On…” accusations:
– this video also illustrates the clear distinction between personally/verbally insulting an individual woman and instituting programs that harm women in general. A distinction clearly lost on Vicki McKenna in the audio file you included.

Speaking of McKenna, the “crying guy” call provides a great opportunity to point out examples of the toxic deception propagandists like McKenna traffic in.

“for 16 months you guys got your side of the story out there every night on TV”

Nightly newscasts that show brief video segments of demonstrators w/o supplying any context or allowing people to make their case in any substantive way hardly qualifies as “our side” getting out there.
If anything the news coverage HURT our side because they preferred to focus on sensationalized images of oddly-dressed hippies and bongo drums and vuvuzelas, instead of addressing the actual arguments. Joe and Jane Voter watching the mainstream news were definitely NOT getting “our side.”

“100,000 people who went to piss in the corners”

Some homeless guy pisses outside while demonstrators are nearby = All the demonstrators were pissing everywhere.
And you fall for that?

If McKenna cared one bit for the truth, why not invite some of the protest organizers on for debate? No, not a random caller she can shout over and hang up on, but an actual guest segment. Thom Hartmann invites opponents on his show all the time and it makes for fascinating radio. Why can’t Vicki?

btw, if you’re interested, I can give you several documented examples of McKenna LYING on air. (another reason that shows like hers don’t qualify for the bonafide news exemption)

The left has used the war analogy across the board. The left claimed that conservatives declared a war on woman and that Walker repealed the equal pay law. That is a patent lie since that is a federal law. They have made the claim that those one the right have waged war on minorities and are racists, yet another patent lie. As a matter of fact the only racial slurs that were hurled at tea party events were done by leftists at black conservatives. I have attended many TEA parties and know first hand the toxic deception used by the leftists.http://veritasvincitprolibertate.wordpress.com/2012/05/14/who-is-linda-hubbard/

Oh on the urination at the capital, care to justify all of the crap that took place at the “Occupy movements” including crapping on a cop car. Care to compare the number of arrests at Occupy vs TEA? Yet the main stream media villafied TEA partiers as right wing extreamist and racist and Occupy as some populist movement, I would say the last couple of elections show where populist sentiment lies.

Why would the establishment want to arrest TP’ers when TP’ers are unwittingly doing the establishment’s bidding for them? TP never posed any economic threat to the financial elite. OWS did. Big difference.
All you have to do is look at the wealth of video from the 2009 town halls to see TP’ers behaving like rude, belligerent thugs.
Corporate astroturfers like AFP and Freedom Works even had instructional memos advising people to yell, disrupt, and rattle the speakers.http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/07/31/53761/recess-harassment-memo/

And angry TP mobs routinely surrounded and harassed Dem congressmen. Instead of arresting the TP’ers, cops would simply escort the congressmen away. Had they been OWS, those same cops would have been cracking skulls and loading the arrest vans.

>”Yet the main stream media villafied TEA partiers as right wing extreamist and racist and Occupy as some populist movement”

Where? Examples please. Because I saw plenty of mainstream news shows who often gave TP spokespeople entire segments to make their arguments unchallenged. Many, many times. But I rarely ever saw them give OWS spokespeople the same courtesy.
Sure, they’d occasionally have a liberal commentator on to criticize the TP, but that’s called balance. Balance in the MSM is good, right?
The paranoid fantasy that the entire MSM was out to demonize the TP is preposterous and ridiculous. If anything, OWS was treated far worse.
Take, for example, the segment from “liberal” CNN’s Erin Burnett, where she deceptively mocks and mischaracterizes OWS:

LOL, you really should put down the bong. Astroturf? Really? I am a member of AFP and we are a front for no one! Your comment that TEA partiers are establishment is even more laughable. The establishment favors more regulation and more corporate welfare, TEA party is pushing for limited government, maximum freedom and no corporate welfare. I could say the same about Tides, ACORN the Democratic party etc are front groups for the socialist party for being a little socialist is as mythological as being a little pregnant or a unicorn! The only reason there were no artests at the TEA party rallys is the fact that they broke no laws?

Wrong! They hate regulations. (i.e. – the rules set in place to keep them from victimizing people) The Wall Street establishment and their lobbyists pushed through a massive wave of DE-regulation. And THAT de-regulation is what made the 2008 crash possible.

Andrew, Andrew, Andrew. Then I guess that makes groups like “media matters, tides foundation and even public radio are astroturf as billionare leftist George Soros donates heavily to them! How about all of the money spent by Unions?

LMAO I see. More liberal hypocricy. It’s ok for a liberal who made his billions collapsing foreign currencies and was convicted of insider trading and it’s altruistic. But when you make your money actually producing a product and actively take part in causes you believe it’s evil.

Wrong! They hate regulations. (i.e. – the rules set in place to keep them from victimizing people) The Wall Street establishment and their lobbyists pushed through a massive wave of DE-regulation. And THAT de-regulation is what made the 2008 crash possible.”. WRONG! Again it was the government forcing banks to give loans to those that normally wouldn’t qualify that artificially pushed up housing costs. I’m no fan of Bush’s especially the “Patriot Act” but he did push for more regulation on Fannie and Freddie as the following video points out.

Really? That’s the best you could find? I’ll agree the reporter was aggressive in her questioning, but she never “bashed” anybody. One thing she pointed out is that the crowd was being hostile to HER as a CNN reporter, as rival FOX was a major supporter and promoter of TP and had already brainwashed these people to see CNN as the (“liberal”) enemy. So can you blame her for being a little defensive and asking the questions she did?

Here’s a typical CNN segment on the TP. It’s 3+ minutes of free promotion w/o any critique:
Where’s the bashing?

Here’s another CNN segment covering a TP event. Notice the completely respectful and unbiased way CNN was covering it. Then notice how hostile and rude the TP crowd was behaving towards CNN, shouting so loud you couldn’t even hear the reporter:
If this had been an OWS crowd shouting down a FOX reporter, you would call them thugs, would you not?
(never mind that, unlike the TP against CNN, OWS has a legitimate reason to be angry at FOX’s relentlessly negative coverage of them)

Whether Walker’s policies are working or not is subject for another debate. The fact is that there are plenty of people arguing otherwise and their arguments were NOT being heard by the majority of WI voters. For example, Kathleen Vinehout has produced a wealth of material disputing Walker’s claim he balanced the budget. Did voters in Waukesha ever hear about that?
How about the fact that, even according to Walker’s own dubious job numbers, WI gained fewer jobs in Walker’s first year than it did in the previous year under Doyle. Here’s Walker’s own document:http://dwd.wisconsin.gov/dwd/newsreleases/2012/120516_dwd_quarterly_data.pdf
Look at the chart at the bottom. Walker admits his first year was worse than Doyle!
Did voters in West Bend ever hear about that? Did the mainstream media share this info with them?
No. All they ever heard was “It’s working” and “he balanced the budget” and other dishonest ad slogans.

>”You guys produced a weak candidate”

No argument there.

>”who offered no platform alternatives”

FALSE. All it takes is one glance at Barrett’s website to know this.

>”show me one market where liberal radio surpasses conservative radio”

Off the top of my head, Portland,OR. Asheville, NC. Even Miami, FL if you count an NPR station that includes left opinion shows.
And probably several other markets. And this is even with the extreme disadvantage of progressive talk usually having much weaker signals and getting much less promotion. Even when the same owners own both a left and right station, they usually promote the right-wing station much more.
Also, there are several markets where Rhandi Rhodes and Ed Schultz ratings have beaten Rush and Hannity when facing head-to-head.

>”Even in Liberal Madison Liberal talk radio had a small fraction of the listeners that conservative radio did I didn’t create the facts but here they are”

Thom Hartman is more of a interview show that a talk show similar to the O’Reilly factor on Fox News. Ed Shultz is more of a talk format. As far as the Madison market goes that is about what Air America peaked at. Not great numbers for the so called progressive capital of the country. Once the novelty wears out those numbers will slide. Talk radio just does not draw progressives. I don’t know why, it is just a fact. I found Thom’s piece on Fascism quite humorous since I have repeatedly shown how the liberals more closely resemble them. Especially with all of the Nanny Statist laws on the progressive agenda. Not to mention the backroom deals with Big Pharma with Obammacare. And course there is always the “Green Corporate” welfare and on and on!!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yb1I5vZ1mpQ&amp;list=UUbjBOso0vpWgDht9dPIVwhQ&amp;index=10&amp;feature=plcp

>”Supporters do not qualify for equal time nor are they entitled to free time. Only the candidates qualify for true equal time”

So the parts that say “If the first side received free air time, The Zapple Doctrine requires that the other side also receive free air time” and “The doctrine basically extends the equal opportunities law to supporters of a candidate” (i.e.- the parts that directly contradict what you keep claiming) don’t exist???

That’s the part you don’t seem to get. The time the talk show hosts talk are exempt. You consider them opposition but the FCC does not. Don’t you think the candidates would be demanding equal if it were considered a use? Now if they gave me free time in a non interview, then zapple would apply. Plus Zapple is a ruminant of the fairness doctrine which was found Unconstitutional so Zapple would probably have the same fate Again from the FCC atty:”In fact, would that doctrine come into play in connection with the radio talk show hosts that are overtly partisan on the air? According to press reports, many of the conservative radio talk show hosts have been aggressively anti-McCain in their programs. As there are usually no appearances by the candidates on these programs, there are no equal opportunities issues, as equal opportunities is triggered only by the actual appearance of a candidate. But could the Zapple Doctrine apply? Traditionally, that doctrine applied to the purchase of time. However, four years ago, when certain television stations thought about airing the “documentary” from the Swift Boat veterans attacking John Kerry, the Kerry campaign argued that the supporters of the Kerry campaign were entitled to free time under the Zapple Doctrine. That case never reached a decision as the stations dropped their plans to air the film, but it remains an open issue (though more than a bit of a long-shot as it would seemingly render the abolition of the Fairness Doctrine meaningless, and raise significant First Amendment issues).”http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2008/02/articles/political-broadcasting/the-runup-to-super-tuesday-rush-the-super-bowl-union-ads-and-an-hour-on-the-hallmark-channel/

This is clearly 100% untrue, as anyone who reads the entire document can tell. Only bonafide news is exempt, and they don’t qualify as bonafide news. They’re partisan opinion shows with many documented cases of news distortion.

“Don’t you think the candidates would be demanding equal if it were considered a use?”

Most candidates aren’t even aware of Zapple. Part of our action is to make them aware.

And the FCC atty you quote makes no definitive statement either way, in fact admitting “it remains an open issue.” Media Action Center is currently in talks with the FCC and they’ve told us our case is strong.

Andrew’ you said ” is clearly 100% untrue, as anyone who reads the entire document can tell. Only bonafide news is exempt, and they don’t qualify as bonafide news. They’re partisan opinion shows with many documented cases of news distortion.” under modern FCC rules even shows like “Howard Stearns” and “Entertainment Tonight” is considered bonafide news and then again you are talking about “USE” so again you have to go back to how the FCC defines “USE”. You keep claiming that it is a separate issue when it is not. Yes the FCC atty said in that earlier article that it was an open issue. He also stated that if chalanged Zapple like the Fairness Doctrine would not pass constitutional scrutiny.. So I doubt the FCC said anything of the kind on your case, otherwise they would just act on it! Here is the attys followup.http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2008/07/articles/political-broadcasting/no-candidate-no-fairness-doctrine-and-no-equal-time/?nomobile=1

>”I doubt the FCC said anything of the kind on your case, otherwise they would just act on it!”

It’s not that simple. These things take time.

Also, from your link:
“Presumably, this policy, even if still valid, would not be applied to talk shows, as the statements of talk show hosts, while certainly biased and pointed in one political direction or another, rarely state outright “go vote for candidate X.”‘

We have documented enormous amounts of time where the hosts did just that.

Andrew’Andrew’Andrew. Doing a bit of cherry picking aren’t you? He also said “The abolition of the Fairness Doctrine also allowed broadcasters to editorialize, even endorsing candidates for political office without having to give the opponent of their favored candidate equal time, just like print media can do. “. The Zapple doctrine was an offshoot of the fairness doctrine which was found unconstitutional. What part of the first amendment do you want to abolish, freedom of speech or freedom of the press?

Of course his last statement sums it up!

“Of course, any application of the Zapple Doctrine, or any reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, would no doubt bring about a constitutional challenge to the regulatory scheme. Given the recent deference of Courts to the First Amendment rights of broadcasters, supporters of the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine should get the message.”

Cherry-picking?
You’re using one individual guy and his opinion columns as the one great authority on all things FCC.
Meanwhile, I’m using the actual official Political Broadcasting Manual of the Wisconsin Broadcasters Association, which again, clearly states that under CURRENT LAW, “If the first side received free air time, The Zapple Doctrine requires that the other side also receive free air time”
and
“The doctrine basically extends the equal opportunities law to supporters of a candidate.”
You can skate around that all you want, and cherry-pick your favorite opinion writers, and repeat my name 3 times in a row again, but it won’t change the facts.

The one guy I cite is an accomplished FCC attorney.David Oxenford was a partner in Davis Wright Tremaine’s Washington, DC office. David has represented broadcasters for over 25 years on a wide array of matters from purchases and sales of broadcast properties and the negotiation of programming agreements to regulatory matters. His regulatory expertise includes all areas of broadcast law including the FCC’s multiple ownership limitations, the political broadcasting rules, EEO policy, advertising issues, and other programming matters. He also represents webcasters and other digital media companies, including serving as counsel to a webcast trade association, and representing internet radio companies on copyright, music licensing and other issues.So I would say that his is an expert opinion. The document you supplied from the WBA doesn’t back you up.. Again it clearly defines what constitutes use which determines what qualifies for equal time.

The right of free speech means that a man has the right to express his ideas without danger of suppression, interference or punitive action by the government. It does not mean that others must provide him with a lecture hall, a radio station or a printing press through which to express his ideas.
Ayn Rand